Rogers Pancreas wrote:I saw them in Lewiston about a week ago. As big a fan of Mastodon as I am, All Them Witches won the night. They were so, so, so fun to see in a mellow, totally serene kind of way.

Sadly I missed them. Doors were at 5 and I figured they would come on at 7. Apparently Asbury Park is ultra strict about noise past 10PM. So my buddy and I got dinner around the corner outside around 6. By the time we finished our beer and dinner, and got into the venue, as we're walking in Mastodon was already a minute into their set.

I would have given them an honest shot. I've gone to shows and been blown away by openers before. 3 comes to mind when I saw them open for Porcupine Tree about a decade ago.

I guess I should mention this here as I talked about this previously, even though I am really late. The Philadelphia Fusion finished as runner up in the Grand Finals of the first season of the Overwatch League.

Jester, and anyone else interested in history, do you know of any good books about how the President came to have so much power over the course of US history? By that, I mean how the President is now basically viewed as head of the gov't, when originally it was supposed to be just part of one branch of gov't.

CantSeeColors wrote:Jester, and anyone else interested in history, do you know of any good books about how the President came to have so much power over the course of US history? By that, I mean how the President is now basically viewed as head of the gov't, when originally it was supposed to be just part of one branch of gov't.

So, there might be a single book but I am not aware of it -- I am not a specialist in US history, so the vast majority of my reading is elsewhere. That being said, you can essentially start with reading on Lincoln (first major expansion of executive power is associated with the Civil War), and go from there. The Depression and WWII are also a key leverage point in the expansion of the executive, particularly in the form of FDR (who pushed it to extremes: e.g., he wanted to pack the courts). Then in the Vietnam Era congress effectively ceded war making powers to the POTUS, and that is where we still sit.

There is an interesting political philosophy question to be had on this front. How well-designed was the government conceived by the founders for the demands placed on the US government in the years that followed. So, would you really want a weaker executive during the crisis years of the late 30s and early 40s?

CantSeeColors wrote:Thanks! That kind of philosophical question is precisely what I’m interested in. Not sure I have strong opinions yet, though I do suspect we’ve swung too far toward executive power right now

Yeah, it's a tough question. The ideal government is a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent autocracy ... that, however, only possible as a theoretical utopia.

Where the rubber meets the road right now is in the intersection of distributed democratic power--i.e., branches of government--and collective political culture. In order to function effectively and efficiently, democratic government requires significant deference to political culture and norms. We have witnessed a signifiant erosion of that culture and norms in recent decades. Perhaps decreased executive power would smooth those things out a bit. Maybe if you had a less powerful partisan executive the tribalism of congress would dissipate a bit and allow a return to democratic ideals a bit more ... but I suspect that genie is not going back in the bottle in the near future.

One of the great frustrations I have with the current GOP--independent of their specific views on policy--is the combination of ignorance and/or hypocrisy when they bemoan some of the shit that is going on. The GOP has spearheaded a maximalist view of legislative tactics in opposition, which began in earnest under the direction of Newt Gingrich (who also nationalized congress in a way it had not been previously). The current avatar of that oppositional view is Mitch McConnell, of course, but he did not come out of nowhere.

Now we are in an arms race, and I really cannot wait to see the handwaving and screaming at some point in the future when the Dems aggressively use a Senate majority. I think the GOP is going to find that the filibuster was their friend, and using it recklessly and blowing it up was a short-term win with long-term cost.

CantSeeColors wrote:Thanks! That kind of philosophical question is precisely what I’m interested in. Not sure I have strong opinions yet, though I do suspect we’ve swung too far toward executive power right now

Yeah, it's a tough question. The ideal government is a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent autocracy ... that, however, only possible as a theoretical utopia.

Where the rubber meets the road right now is in the intersection of distributed democratic power--i.e., branches of government--and collective political culture. In order to function effectively and efficiently, democratic government requires significant deference to political culture and norms. We have witnessed a signifiant erosion of that culture and norms in recent decades. Perhaps decreased executive power would smooth those things out a bit. Maybe if you had a less powerful partisan executive the tribalism of congress would dissipate a bit and allow a return to democratic ideals a bit more ... but I suspect that genie is not going back in the bottle in the near future.

One of the great frustrations I have with the current GOP--independent of their specific views on policy--is the combination of ignorance and/or hypocrisy when they bemoan some of the shit that is going on. The GOP has spearheaded a maximalist view of legislative tactics in opposition, which began in earnest under the direction of Newt Gingrich (who also nationalized congress in a way it had not been previously). The current avatar of that oppositional view is Mitch McConnell, of course, but he did not come out of nowhere.

Now we are in an arms race, and I really cannot wait to see the handwaving and screaming at some point in the future when the Dems aggressively use a Senate majority. I think the GOP is going to find that the filibuster was their friend, and using it recklessly and blowing it up was a short-term win with long-term cost.

But let's be honest, half of these dudes will be dead by the time that happens.

CantSeeColors wrote:But let's be honest, half of these dudes will be dead by the time that happens.

I mean, Senate will be in play in 2020 and again in 2022. GOP will be defending a lot of seats. It's easy to imagine the Dems picking up Senate seats in Maine, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina in 2020.

That's fair, I was fairly flippantly just referring to the fact that these dudes are in it for personal gain, and if they lose the senate in the next couple of cycles, they'll all still have gained a lot of money in the process. Appreciate all your comments, for sure. Will probably start digging for interesting books in the time periods you suggested.

CantSeeColors wrote:That's fair, I was fairly flippantly just referring to the fact that these dudes are in it for personal gain, and if they lose the senate in the next couple of cycles, they'll all still have gained a lot of money in the process. Appreciate all your comments, for sure. Will probably start digging for interesting books in the time periods you suggested.

I desperately want McConnell to fall into the minority and have to watch Schumer and company ram buckets of shit down his throat after 2020. McConnell is one of the most important politicians in US history, and that is entirely due to the immense damage he has done.

This whole process is very interesting to me from a legacy perspective. As you get older, particularly if you serve in public life, I imagine that you start to care a lot about how you're remembered (ex. would rather be an FDR than a Hoover, or a Reagan compared to a Nixon, etc.).

Trump is delusional enough that he probably thinks people will remember him as a beloved leader (he also may just not think about death at all). But I imagine that guys (and it's all guys) like Gingrich, Ryan, McConnell, etc. probably think about their legacy. So, do these guys just not give a shit ("I'll be dead anyways, who cares?") or are they just totally delusional.

The NYT had a long, excruciating profile of McConnell last week, but I still can't figure out if he gets it. Does he still truly believe that he's fighting for the best version of America? Or does he realize that his entire party is made up the wealthy and the xenophobes that make up ~40-45% of the country.

These guys aren't totally stupid, they have to see that there is a demographic tidal wave coming for their politics eventually (at some point, the Boomers and Gen X are going to die out). I would bet solid money that in 20-30 years, McConnell will be remembered with hatred by most of the American public and that Ryan will be widely viewed as an ineffectual hypocrite. Does this just not bother them?

You're vastly overrating historical literacy there. In 20-30 years, most Americans will know nothing about McConnell. I mean, what percentage of Americans know anything about Gingrich as speaker of the house?

I'm talking about from those guys' perspective though (which is probably somewhat at odds with my last sentence). For example, most Americans probably don't know who Everett Dirksen is, but I'm guessing that he has a pretty solid historical legacy because of the Civil Rights Act. I'm pretty sure McConnell has been active in trying to get things named after him in Kentucky, so on some level, he clearly wants to be remembered. But what's the point of being remembered if everyone that does remember you thinks that you were a piece of shit?

FlyHigh wrote:I'm talking about from those guys' perspective though (which is probably somewhat at odds with my last sentence). For example, most Americans probably don't know who Everett Dirksen is, but I'm guessing that he has a pretty solid historical legacy because of the Civil Rights Act. I'm pretty sure McConnell has been active in trying to get things named after him in Kentucky, so on some level, he clearly wants to be remembered. But what's the point of being remembered if everyone that does remember you thinks that you were a piece of shit?

Sure, but bear in mind that there are essentially two intellectual groups when it comes to this ... and the group McConnell gives a shit about, is suffering from extreme epistemic closure. Those that think he's a piece of shit do so because they think he hasn't been enough of a piece of shit from your perspective.

Doom Patrol has taken a few liberties, but the 87/95% Tomatometer rating is well-deserved. I'm not quite through with the first season, but I'm willing to put it in the same company as Doctor Who and Firefly already.

Bored at work as I wait several database statements to finish on a ridiculously awful designed database system, which is maintained by a different department but I nevertheless have to retrieve data from :X

Anyway, I recently got back into Overwatch and its pro League a bit and since I mentioned it a couple of times before in this thread, I thought I might give an update.

1) Overwatch League is still going and there is still a team "from Philadelphia" in the Philadelphia Fusion. However, that team will actually become local to that fine city, as the team will be getting a home arena as part of the renovations of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex.

2) The Fusion may benefit from a coming rules change which will be implemented mid-season. In Overwatch the characters players can use are organized into three different categories. There are "DPS" who deal damage, "Tanks" which are meant to protect their team and absorb damage, and "Support" characters that heal their teammates and provide other benefits. While a lot of compositions tend to go for 2-2-2 in this, this was so far not strictly codified and a composition became popular in the "meta" which had teams play three tanks and three supports (with possibly one of them being replaced by a specific damage character who has the ability to block the special abilities of enemy characters). This was called GOATS. While the meta was slowly shifting away from this composition, beginning next week every team will have to play 2-2-2. The Fusion are hovering around a playoff spot, but did a lot better last year when 2-2-2 was the way to play and did not do very well when they were more or less forced to play GOATS, as they have some of the best DPS players in the game, but they were forced to play characters they are less adept at.

3) As an explanation of the season and why the change above can be made mid-season: Overwatch League is structured into four "stages" with a playoff after each stage to crown the stage champion. Right now is the break in between stage three and four, which also allows for the League to make changes to the game software which is used for league play, adding patches and changes already live in the consumer version (they are not added immedaitely to not disrupt the "game state" for the sport). After the fourth stage will be the grand final tournament for which the top 6 teams are automatically qualified, and places 7 to 12 play a "play-in tournament" to determine the last two playoff spots. The Fusion currently are in 9th place, but have a relatively easy schedule ahead of them as their remaining 7 matches are against one team in front of them in the standings, one team they are currently tied with, and five teams below them.